PLEADINGS AND THE VERDICT
The instructions of the court, carefully prepared by Judge J. T. Ronald,
required sixty-five minutes in the reading. These instructions were
divided into twenty-three sections, each section representing a
different phase of the case. Herewith is presented the first section in
its entirety and a summary of the remaining portion:
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury:
"My responsibility is to decide all questions of law in this case; yours
to decide one question of fact. With these instructions my
responsibility practically ends, your commences. You have taken a solemn
oath that 'you will well and truly try and true delivery make between
the State of Washington and the prisoner at the bar, whom you have in
charge, according to the evidence.'
"There is no escape from the responsibility which has come to you, save
in the faithful effort to render a true verdict. Any verdict other than
one based upon pure conscience will be an injustice. An honest juror
yields to no friendship, nor bears any enmity. He is moved by no
sympathy, nor influenced by any prejudice. He seeks the approval of no
one, nor fears the condemnation of anyone--save that one unerring,
silent monitor, his own conscience. Disregard this whispering voice in
yourself and you may fool the public, you may fool the defendant, you
may, hereafter, with some effort, even close your own soul to her
whispering reproaches and enjoy the ill-earned plaudits of the selfish
or biased friend or interest whom you sought to please, but be assured
you will not change the truth, you will not deceive justice which, at
some time, and in some way, will collect from you the penalty which is
always sooner or later exacted from those who betray the truth.
"So let me urge that in deciding the issue of facts which is now your
responsibility you be guided by these instructions which you have sworn
to follow, and by their conscientious application to the evidence in
this case.
"Do not permit yourselves to be swayed by sympathy, influenced by
prejudice, or moved in the least by a consideration of what might or
might not meet the approval or the condemnation of any person or class
of persons, or of interest whatever. To do so will be an act alike
dishonest, violative of your oath, substituting for a fair and impartial
trial an unfair and a partial one. This is an epoch in your lives to
which you will ever look back. Be sure that when you do you may face the
smiling approval of your conscience rather than its stinging reproach.
"The guilt or innocence of this defendant is a single question of fact
to be determined by the evidence alone. If this evidence shows defendant
to be guilty, then no sympathy, no desire for approval, no fear of
condemnation, can make him innocent; if the evidence fails to show him
guilty, then no prejudice, no desire for approval, no fear of
condemnation, can make him guilty. The issue is a momentous one, not
only to the defendant, who, if innocent, deserves the deepest sympathy,
for the accusation made against him is a serious one; but likewise to
the public and to society at large, and the tranquility and security of
our different communities.
"A false verdict against the defendant conflicts with the purpose and
the laws of the State as effectively as a false verdict in his favor.
The State has no higher duty or interest than to preserve all its
citizens from suffering under unfounded accusations. If, on the other
hand, the guilt of the defendant has been shown, a false verdict of
acquittal would not only be a breach of your oaths, but it would inflict
a grievous wrong upon the State. If a true verdict calls for conviction,
the misfortune to the defendant is not in the verdict, nor in the
penalty, but in the fact it was his conduct which makes the verdict
true. You alone of all the world, and who now possess all the facts, are
therefore responsible for the verdict in this case. The law is not
concerned about conviction merely--but it is concerned, deeply
concerned, that juries shall conscientiously and fearlessly declare the
truth. Whether it be conviction, or whether it be acquittal, a true
verdict is justice--a false is injustice."
Judge Ronald followed this lecture on civic righteousness and personal
duty with more specific instructions to the jury, of which the following
are excerpts.
"In this case you must answer the question--Is this defendant guilty or
innocent? * * * Keep constantly in mind this issue and do not go astray
to discuss any other of the many issues that may be suggested by or may
lay hidden among the great mass of evidence in this case. Whether the
Industrial Workers of the World shall or shall not speak at a certain
place in the City of Everett is not an issue here. * * * Whether the
open or the closed shop shall prevail is not a subject for your
consideration.
"Every defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. * * *
You must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the facts necessary
to show guilt before you can convict. * * * You should give the phrase
'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' its full meaning and weight as
explained and defined to you in these instructions. On the other hand,
you should not magnify nor exaggerate its force and fail to return a
verdict of guilty simply because the evidence does not satisfy you of
guilt to an absolute certainty. No crime can be proved to an absolute
certainty.
"It does not follow because every one of the facts which are disputed
between the parties may not be established beyond a reasonable doubt,
that there cannot be a conviction. At the same time you will bear
carefully in mind that all facts which are necessary to establish the
conclusion of guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
"There are two facts necessary to convict this defendant:
(1) That some person on the boat unlawfully killed Jefferson Beard.
(2) That this defendant aided, incited or encouraged such shooting.
"If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of these two facts, then
you must convict, no matter what may be your belief concerning any other
question in dispute in this case; if you have a reasonable doubt as to
either of these two facts, then you must acquit."
The instructions then went into detail as to the rights of the workers
to organize, to bargain in regard to compensation, hours of labor and
conditions of work generally, to go on strike, to persuade or entice
their fellow workers by peaceful means from taking the positions which
they have left, to assemble at public places where such meetings are not
prohibited by law and ordinance, and "no person, either private citizen
or public official, has any right to deny, abridge or in any manner
interfere with the full and free enjoyment of those privileges and any
person who attempts to do so is himself guilty of an unlawful act."
After reciting such acts attributed to the workers in this case as were
in violation of law, the instructions went on to state that "a sheriff
has no authority to arrest any person without a warrant except upon
probable cause for believing such person has violated a law of the
state; nor has he authority after making such arrest to hold his
prisoner in custody for a longer time than is reasonably necessary to
cause proper complaint to be filed, and an opportunity given for bail. *
* * A sheriff has no right or authority to interfere with or prevent any
person from violating a city ordinance, nor has he the right or
authority to arrest for violations of city ordinances" unless "the act
threatened, or the act done, in violation of such ordinance be at the
same time violation of a state law."
The instructions then outlined the scope of criminal conspiracy, stating
that it was unnecessary for one conspirator to know all of the other
conspirators but that common design is the essence of the charge of
conspiracy. The acts of one conspirator become the acts of any and all
conspirators. In the eyes of the law the sheriff and the deputies also
constituted in this case but one personality, the sheriff being bound by
the acts of his deputies and the deputies being authorized by the powers
of the sheriff. Also the ordinance dated September 21st, 1916, was held
to be a valid one.
"Now whether any of the Industrial Workers of the World have been, prior
to November 5, 1916, guilty of encouraging disrespect for law, or of
unlawful assemblage, or of riot, is not the question on trial here. They
could all be guilty of all the acts or offenses heretofore mentioned,
and still this defendant be innocent of this particular crime charged on
November 5th, or they could all be innocent of all the acts mentioned,
and defendant still be guilty of the main charge here.
"Again, whether the sheriff or any of his assistants have been guilty of
any of the acts charged against them is not on trial here. They could
all be guilty of all the acts charged and still be the victims of
unjustifiable shooting from that boat, or they could all be innocent of
any offense, and still be the aggressors and cause of that shooting on
the dock wherein Jefferson Beard lost his life.
"One of the questions in this case is the question--Which side was the
aggressor on that occasion?
"In determining who was the aggressor it is your duty to consider all
the facts and circumstances surrounding the situation, the relations of
the parties to each other, their intentions toward each other, and all
the things they did. You will also consider the past conduct of all the
parties, any acts of violence or other assaults that may have been
committed, and any threats that may have been made, and the character
as known and understood by each other.
[Illustration: Victims at Morgue.
John Looney Hugo Gerlot, Felix Baran Abe Rabinowitz]
"Therefore, simplify your deliberations and determine first the
question: Did somebody on the boat unlawfully kill Jefferson Beard? If
somebody on the boat did not kill Beard, then of course Tracy could not
be guilty of aiding John Doe to do something which John Doe did not do.
But if the State has satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt that Beard
was killed by a shot fired by somebody on the boat, then such killing is
either unlawful, in which case John Doe would be guilty of one of three
degrees of unlawful or felonious homicide, viz., murder in the first
degree, murder in the second degree, or manslaughter; or it is
justifiable in which case John Doe would not be guilty. Hence you will
render one of four verdicts in this case--
1. Guilty of murder in the first degree, or
2. Guilty of murder in the second degree, or
3. Guilty of manslaughter, or
4. Not guilty.
"It is very desirable that you reach a verdict in this case. The law
requires that your conclusion shall be unanimous. It is not required
that any one of you should surrender his individual freedom of
judgement, but it is well that each of you should have in mind that your
true verdict cannot ordinarily be reached except by mutual consideration
and discussion of all the different views that may suggest themselves to
any of your number. The jury room is no place for pride of opinion. A
verdict which is the result of real harmony, or that growing out of
open-minded discussion between jurors, and a willingness to be
convinced, with a proper regard for the opinions of others, and with a
reasonable distrust of individual views not shared by their fellows, is
a fair yielding of one reason to a stronger one; such, having in mind
the great desirability of unanimity, is not open to criticism. The law
contemplates that jurors shall, by their discussions, harmonize their
views if possible, but not that they shall compromise and yield for the
mere purpose of agreement. One should not surrender his conscientious
convictions.
"And now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I commit the case to your
hands. Listen to the arguments. Regardless of what may be counsel's
recollection of testimony, you must take and follow your own
recollection. You are not required to adopt any view which counsel may
suggest in argument, but you should give close attention to all they
say. Take up your task fearlessly, with but one single aim--to discharge
the obligations of your oaths. You have no class to satisfy--simply the
dictates of your own conscience."
Taken as a whole the instructions were distinctly unfavorable to the
defendant, not because of any particular bias of the judge whose
political ambitions might have made him desirous of establishing a
record for fairness, but by reason of the fact that the law itself on
the question of criminal conspiracy is archaic and absurd, being based
upon precedents established when the use of electricity and steam power
were unknown, when the stage coach was the fastest means of locomotion
and the tallow dip the principal form of illumination. This law, like
all other statute law, was created thru the desire of the ruling class
to protect property, therefore it contained no element of justice when
applied to the modern proletariat, the twentieth century worker stripped
of everything but his power to labor.
Following the reading of the court's instructions prosecutor Black made
his argument, Vanderveer and Moore for the defense addressing the jury
in turn, and Cooley making the concluding plea for the state. This
arrangement gave Veitch no chance to turn loose his oratorical
fireworks, much to the chagrin of the gentleman who had been so kindly
loaned to the prosecution by the Merchants' and Manufacturers'
Association.
Black's lengthy address was a whine for pity because of his youth and a
prayer for relief from the dire straits and legal bankruptcy into which
Snohomish County had fallen. It is summarized in the following:
"We are at the close of a great trial. A great deal of evidence has been
introduced; practically two million five hundred words. From the
standpoint of the attorneys who have tried this case the evidence has
been very complicated because it had in it a great mass of evidence that
was only remotely connected with the real issue at bar. You as jurors
have a very simple question to decide in this case.
"Thomas H. Tracy is charged with the crime of murder in the first
degree, not that he himself killed Jefferson Beard, but that he, Thomas
H. Tracy, aided, incited and encouraged some unknown one to kill
Jefferson Beard of Everett, on last November 5th.
"I repeat first that some person on the boat unlawfully killed Jefferson
Beard; secondly that this defendant, aided, incited and encouraged such
shooting.
"I come before you as the prosecuting attorney of Snohomish County.
Owing to the exigencies of politics I was elected to office a few days
after November 5th, the time of this catastrophe. Two months and a few
days after, I took office and found a man charged with a crime that I
did not have the power of prosecution over up to that time. Mr. Webb,
then prosecuting attorney, who had started the action and initiated and
seen fit to collect some of the evidence, was not able to complete the
prosecution on account of the size of the trial.
"I am a young man without the experience that any man ought to have in
the prosecuting of a case like this, a case the size of which has never
been experienced in the State of Washington, and in many ways an
absolutely pioneer case in criminal trials the world over.
"So the State has been hampered in that at the outset a young man, a new
prosecuting attorney, has come into office and to him there has come a
case that no man could read up concerning, and a large piece of
battle--it is the State's contention, a battle between hundreds of men
on the boat and a large number of deputies on the dock, a battle
absolutely and surely initiated by firing from the boat, but still a
battle;--a case without parallel in the criminal history of this State
or of the United States.
"It happens that fortunately the State has had assistance in this case.
The State of Washington, thru its county commissioners, requested the
assistance in this case of Mr. Cooley, whom you have all grown to know,
a man who formerly for four years was prosecuting attorney of Snohomish
County, and who since that time has been associated as assistant counsel
in practically all the criminal prosecutions of Snohomish County that
have required assistance.
"And in addition to this the State has been fortunate in having, at the
request of the county commissioners, the assistance of Mr. Veitch, a
young man it is true, but one who thru years of service in the district
attorney's office in Los Angeles County had experience in criminal
trials, and especially because of his connection with what are known as
the conspiracy murder trials in Los Angeles County, and also in
assisting the federal prosecution at Indianapolis. It has been necessary
in this kind of a case for the State to have assistance.
"Now I told you my friends that I came here as prosecuting attorney of
Snohomish County. I am also a deputy prosecuting attorney of King County
under Mr. Lundin. After I was appointed I was very unpleasantly
surprised by one statement. A little phrase, 'without pay,' so that I
don't know whether really I am a deputy prosecuting attorney or not,
because I found that in public office a man always likes to see the
warrant come at the end of the month!
"You are a jury in this case from King County because the defendant and
the other defendants filed an affidavit to the effect that they didn't
expect that a jury selected in Snohomish County would give the defendant
a fair trial. The State is happy in your selection and knows that you
will follow the dictates of your conscience and is likewise confident
that you cannot help but believe that Jefferson Beard was killed by
someone shooting from the Verona, and that Thomas H. Tracy, alias George
Martin, incited, aided and encouraged in that shooting.
"Now, the witnesses on the dock are men of Everett, men of family, men
who are laborers, but with families; men who are clerks, with interests
in Snohomish County; men who hold some important positions, as lawyers;
people with families, people who by residence have established
reputation for truth and veracity; men who have established themselves,
have made themselves successful, sometimes in merely that they have
established a small home, or who have lived in Everett and have made
friends and acquaintances. That is the class of men that were on the
dock.
"There are only two classes of people who know anything about the
shooting. The people on the dock are one set, and the people on the boat
are the other.
"The people on the boat, with but one or two exceptions, are men who have
established no reputation for truth and veracity, have been successful
in the world in no way, even from the standpoint of stable friends,
living here and there, unfortunately; perchance, with some of them it is
due to unfortunate circumstances and environments, and they have been
unlucky, but still they haven't established stable friends in any
community.
"Then there are the three boatmen on the boat--and those three men,
unprejudiced, unbiased, not deputies and not Commercial Club members,
but merely laborers, they know where the first shot came from, and they
tell, and their testimony absolutely and entirely contradicts the
testimony of the defense in this case from start to finish.
"And when you look at that red face and red hair and that honest
expression of big Jack Hogan John Hogan here, and his honest blue eyes,
it doesn't seem to me that you can have any more doubt than I have that
Jack Hogan saw Tracy.
"Now, these men that come on the stand all confess they had a common
design. Their common design they say, was that about two o'clock in
Everett they were going to speak at the corner of Wetmore and Hewitt
Avenues, that is their common design.
"The court tells you that the purpose that they admit was unlawful, so
Tracy, by the testimony adduced in his favor, was one of the men having
a common design for an unlawful purpose. Tracy, regardless of his
location, regardless of whether he fired or not, is guilty.
"The sheriff and his deputies could have been guilty of everything
claimed against them previous to this and the defendant still be guilty
of helping and encouraging someone else to unjustifiably kill Jefferson
Beard.
"Under the Court's instructions there were acts done at Beverly Park
that were unlawful. There is no question about that. Instead of this
being a weakness on the State's part, it seems to me that it is an added
strength. Because the I. W. W. used Beverly Park for what purpose? They
jumped on it with desire, deeming it a fortunate circumstance because
they wanted to inflame men to invade Everett. They jumped on this, the
men at the head of the conspiracy, they jumped on Beverly Park because
they could use it to inflame their members. How do we know? Their own
statements! Their telegrams! 'Advertise conditions and send volunteers.'
Volunteers for what? Volunteers for what? When a man represents things
and so helps to make men mad he wants these men up there as volunteers
for retaliation. And the Court has instructed you that if these men went
up there with the purpose of retaliating, they are guilty. Tracy having
been one of a common design makes it central, vital, in good conscience
as citizens, that you return your verdict asked by the state.
"Any time a murder is committed it is important that prosecution be had
and conviction secured. That is always vital from the standpoint of
protection to society. The police, the sheriff's office, and the
officials of all cities and states of the United States sometimes
forget themselves, I take it, sometimes do things they shouldn't do,
sometimes do things they should be censured for, but the fact that they
had is no reason that murder is to be excused or justified, because if
you did, we would have no society. That is true in an ordinary murder
case. That is overwhelmingly true in this case.
"The I. W. W. is an organization that realizes the great truth in
combating government. They have stumbled upon an overwhelmingly
successful instrument in fighting society. What is that? To commit a
violation of the law in numbers, to violate the law by so many people
that only a few can be prosecuted and even if they are convicted, the
great majority go scott free. They built better than they knew when they
stumbled upon the great secret that the violation of a law in great
numbers would protect practically all of the violators. And this trial
itself is proof of that.
"Snohomish County can ill afford the expense of this one trial; can ill
afford the expense of two or three trials after this; would be
overwhelmed with debt to convict all the men who are in this conspiracy,
if there were a conspiracy it can't do it; most of them are safe from
prosecution and they know it; and the only protection that Snohomish
County has, and King County has, and the State of Washington has, and
the United States has, is that when something happens like this a
conviction be secured against a man who is guilty, not because you are
convicting all, because you can't, you are helpless--but because that at
least is the voice of warning to the men that if you lead an attempt you
may be the one of the great number that will be caught. It is important
from the standpoint of citizens of the State of Washington to establish
the principle that crimes cannot be committed by numbers with impunity,
that while it is fairly safe, it won't be absolutely safe. We have no
protection. That is the vital part of this case. We have no protection.
[Illustration: JOHN LOONEY]
"If this case were just that of murder committed by one man acting
alone, the importance of your verdict would be of small significance,
compared with the importance of your verdict in a criminal case where
the members are part of an organization. True, the society has no doubt
a great many aims that are desirable to improve the welfare of the
workingman. But it has one aim, one vital aim, in its platform to bring
upon it the condemnation of thinking, sober men and women residing
permanently in the State of Washington, and that is sabotage.
"We are not claiming that the killing of Jefferson Beard was in the
exercise of sabotage. We are saying that sabotage along with the
conscious withdrawal of efficiency, sabotage along with the destruction
of property, may also mean crime.
"The I. W. W. members did not come to Everett for the purpose of
employment; they were men who were wanderers upon the face of the earth,
who desired to establish themselves nowhere, and none of them, as far as
this witness stand is concerned, expected to work in Everett or to put
sabotage in effect in Everett by working slow. The only way they could
use sabotage in Everett was by the destruction of property. The mayor
became alarmed, and the sheriff, after their repeated threats in their
papers. But whether you believe sabotage to be good, bad, or
indifferent, really is not vital in this case except as a circumstance.
"Now, the Wanderer. The Wanderer did not happen the way they said it
happened. The sheriff did shoot after they refused to stop. The sheriff
did hit some of them with the butt of his gun. The sheriff brought them
into Everett because they constituted an unlawful assemblage. The
sheriff did the only thing he could do. He filed charges against them
and they were arraigned in court. Twenty-three men cannot be tried
quickly when each one demands a separate trial by jury. Twenty-three
trials would stop the judicial machinery for three months. They could
not be tried and so the sheriff turned them loose. Maybe he did hit them
harder than he should have. Policemen do that! Sheriff do that! Lots of
time they hit men when it is not necessary. Hit them too hard,
sometimes. They don't always understand exactly what they are supposed
to do. But the I. W. W. exaggerated the matter and used it to incite
retaliation on the fifth. So the Beverly Park incident, and all other
incidents, if true to the last syllable of the defense testimony, merely
in this case extenuated the motive on November 5th.
"Now then, why did the State select Tracy? The State's evidence was to
the effect that Tracy was not only a member of the conspiracy, but was
firing. Several State's witnesses recognized Tracy. There was another
reason. What was that? Some of these men, some of these boys, flitting
here and there from job to job, with never more than a dollar or two in
their pockets, were inflamed intentionally by people who misrepresented
conditions. They did not have any right to be inflamed; they did not
have any right to go to Everett and they are guilty of murder if they
went up there to retaliate for any wrong, actual or conceived. But the
State has preferred to put on first a man who was in the forefront of
the conspiracy; the man that appeared to be an important cog of that
conspiracy, and that man is Tracy.
"Tracy knew that a great many people of Everett were alarmed and
disturbed. Tracy knew that the I. W. W. did not want anything in
Everett, had no interests there, no friends there except as they were
disturbing conditions. Tracy knew the purposes and Tracy went back to
Seattle so he could lead this excursion to Everett. Tracy is a man of
determination. He knew the situation and he was prominent enough to be
selected by the organization as a stationary delegate. And if any man
knew what they intended to do in Everett, it undoubtedly was Tracy. So,
regardless of whether he fired or not, Tracy was one of the men who were
on the inside. Tracy is a part of the conspiracy that happened. But no
man, my friends, on that boat, that went up there with a common design
to break the ordinance has been sinned against because he is in jail.
"Now, my friends, you want in good faith to follow the instructions of
the court. It seems to me that the only question you have to decide is
the one the court told you to decide--Was Beard killed unlawfully by a
shot from the boat, and did Tracy aid, encourage or incite that killing?
"The murder of Jefferson Beard was a premeditated murder. Following the
instructions of the court, separating the wheat from the chaff, and
deciding that one question, we of the State are confident that you as
jurors and good citizens, as honest, sincere and conscientious citizens,
will protect Snohomish County--we believe that your verdict will say 'We
are convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Tracy is guilty, and,
being so convinced, we are going to protect Snohomish County as we would
our own.' I thank you!"
Vanderveer handled the case from two different viewpoints--that of a
first degree murder trial and also as a section of the class struggle.
His address was a masterly array of invincible logic and satire.
Omitting his readings from the transcript of evidence, his speech was
substantially as follows:
"This cause is, as the counsel for the state has told you, one of
momentous importance not only to the defendant but to a class--a large
class of people of whom today he stands merely as an unfortunate single
member, fighting their battle.
"We do not ask in this case for mercy, we do not ask for sympathy, but
it is essential, absolutely essential that we should have cold, stern
justice; justice for the defendant, justice for those who have oppressed
him, those who have denied him his rights. We hope this case is the
beginning of a line of prosecution which will see that justice is done
in the Everett situation.
"It is not the defense who outlined the issues in this case, it was the
State who determined that. They have chosen their fighting ground, and
we had to meet them on that battle. In the beginning of this case the
State, thru Mr. Black, told you that it would prove a conspiracy of very
formidable proportions, a conspiracy in the first place to commit acts
of violence and to incite acts of violence, a conspiracy to commit
arson, a conspiracy to overrun all law and order in Everett and bring on
a condition of chaos. The claim was a very formidable one. The evidence
has been very silly. The State ought to apologize, in common decency,
for ever having suggested these things.
"What is the evidence about the fires? The fire marshall's report, made
by a man who would naturally try to enlarge the performance of his
duties and impress upon the public the manner in which he discharged
them, reports only four fires of incendiary origin for the entire year.
Every one of these were discovered before they did five cents worth of
damage. Who had notice of them? Was it the I. W. W. who set them or was
it Reese or some paid employe of the Pinkerton Agency? Can you conceive
that an organization embracing as many members as this does, bent upon
the destruction of Everett, could not set one fire at least that would
do some damage. It is nothing but a hoax!
"As to force and violence, who did they put on to prove it? Young Howard
Hathaway, a mere boy, whose father represents some mill companies in
Everett. Then Sheriff McRae, and McRae couldn't tell you one thing that
he heard at the street meetings. Then they put on Ed Hawes, the big
brute that out at Beverly called the little boy a coward, a baby,
because he wouldn't stand there and be slugged with guns and clubs. And
what did Hawes say? That he looked up sabotage in the International
Dictionary! And you can search that book until you are black in the face
and you won't find a word in there about sabotage. Why, if sabotage is
such a terrible thing, did Hawes, having heard all about it at the
street meeting, have to go home to look it up at all?
"At these meetings there was not one thing said that could invite
criticism, there was not one thing said that could justify or invite
censure or abuse; there was not one disorderly thing done but was done
by the officers of the law themselves, and they went in recklessly,
without excuse, without right, they clubbed Henig, they clubbed Carr, a
former member of the council, and they roughed women around and knocked
them down. Why? Because these people were mill owners, their hirelings
and their representatives, who had been instructed in the propaganda of
the open shop by employes, aides and emissaries of the Merchants' and
Manufacturers' Association.
"A lot of people went to the jail one night, a thousand, maybe. They
hooted, they cat-called, and they hissed. Is it any wonder they did?
Ladies and gentlemen, I want to tell you there is no surer verdict on
earth than the verdict of a crowd; and the verdict of that crowd
condemned what the deputies had done.
"Finally they say there was a conspiracy on the 5th of November to go to
Everett and to hold their meeting at all hazard, to brook no opposition,
to ride rough-shod over it, to oppose everyone and anything that stood
in the way of accomplishing their purpose. I ask you to think just for a
moment how foreign that is to everything you know about the I. W. W. and
their operations and behavior in Everett. Not one witness for the state
could tell you an incident where one of them resisted arrest, could tell
you an occasion where one of them had advocated violence, could tell you
one occasion where any one of them had committed any acts of violence.
"These people wrote to Governor Lister calling his attention to the
violations of the law on the part of the officers of Everett; they wrote
to Mayor Merrill, enclosing a copy of that letter and calling on him to
restore the order that had been violated by the officers of the law;
they scattered handbills all over Everett, among its best homes and in
its business streets, calling upon the good citizens to come to their
meeting on November 5th at Wetmore and Hewitt, to come and help maintain
your own and our constitutional privileges; they mailed to the citizens
of Everett on October 30th, seven or eight hundred copies of a little
pamphlet calling upon them to intervene and stop the brutality of
officers of the law; they questioned Governor Lister at a public meeting
and again called his attention to the conditions in Everett; they called
in the reporters, called the newspapers and notified the editors that
they were going to Everett and asked them to have representatives
present: Are these the acts of conspirators?
"You know how that meeting was called and why it was called. You know it
from ministers of the gospel, you know it from the lips of those whom
you cannot help but believe. And it was called for Sunday, the day when
people ordinarily resent disorders of the kind that had occurred there.
It was called for the daytime, when ordinarily abuse and violence are
not attempted. And this big crowd went up there on this fine Sunday
afternoon because in number there is strength and in numbers there is
protection against brutality.
"At first the deputies had taken out one or two and abused and beaten
them; then they had taken five or six; they had taken eighteen; finally
they had taken forty-one. But I ask you, would you believe it possible
that they could take two hundred or three hundred people in broad
daylight and do to them what had been done to the others? Yet the
evidence in this case shows convincingly and conclusively they intended
to do substantially that thing. They intended to run those men into a
warehouse; they didn't intend to let one of them get away. And had they
gotten them into that warehouse you don't know, I don't know, nobody
knows what would have happened!
"That is the evidence of conspiracy in this case. They have claimed no
other conspiracy; they have offered no other evidence of conspiracy,
either to set fires or to incite violence, or to override all opposition
on November 5th. Their evidence doesn't stand even if unanswered--and no
evidence could be more successfully answered.
"What evidence is there that Tom Tracy had anything to do with such a
conspiracy, if there were one? Their most willing tools, Auspos and
Reese, don't say a word about Tracy.
"What does the identification by McRae amount to? He identifies Tracy as
the man who leaned out of the window and shot at him. Now at the time
this shot was fired McRae had his back turned to the man who shot it. He
says himself he did, and he was shot thru the heel, which seems to prove
it. That, by the way, suggests to me that it was not an I. W. W. who
shot McRae. The man who shot him must have thought McRae a hero, like
the gentleman of mythological fame who was killed by an arrow thru the
heel which no I. W. W. does, I assure you. Or else he thought that McRae
wore his brains there.
"But I am not going to discuss McRae at great length either now or at
any other stage of this case, because the greatest kindness I can do him
is to forget him. The man is a perjurer! He lied! He was not mistaken.
He deliberately, cold-bloodedly lied about almost everything in this
case wherein his conduct as an officer was questioned. He lied about
'Sergeant' Keenan! He lied about shooting at the "Wanderer," and you saw
the bullet holes. He lied about Berg and about Mitten, and finally, and
last of all lied, and we have proven it conclusively, about being out to
Beverly Park.
"Bridge's identification of Tracy does not agree with that of Smith, and
Bridge does not even agree with his own testimony given at the coroner's
inquest. Smith picked out a photograph and said it was Tracy and that
picture resembles Tracy about as much as I do some of you jurors. Bridge
and Smith say that Tracy fired three shots, and Hogan says he fired only
one. And you know, ladies and gentlemen, that Hogan did not see this man
at all. You know that he did not even see the window at which he
pretends this man was sitting when the shot was fired. You know it
because you went there to the dock and you saw the boat lined up to a
mathematical certainty by the shot marks, and you saw a photograph taken
with the camera placed by John Hogan exactly where he said he was
standing himself. And there wasn't a one of you who could identify Bob
Mills, with his long nose and angular features, with everything that
makes identification easy, when he was in the position attributed to
Tracy. And when you came around from there to where you could look
directly at the place, the reflected glare of the sunshine left nothing
but a blank background.
"There were one hundred and forty deputies looking toward the place
where the first shot was supposed to have been fired. They have produced
on the witness stand only about one in ten. We challenged them to bring
them all on, we dared them to do it, and Mr. Cooley said 'I accept that
dare!'--look it up Mr. Cooley on page 1802 of the transcript--but he did
not dare accept that dare. Mr. Cooley knows what those nine-tenths would
testify to. Twelve out of their sixteen witnesses who testified about
the first shots said that their brother deputies were mistaken as to
even the place on the boat where the first three shots came from.
"I venture, ladies and gentlemen, that with a bit of the kind of work
the State has employed in this case, a little bit of the same zeal that
was employed on Auspos, a little bit of the same zeal that was employed
with Reese, a little bit of the help of McLaren of Los Angeles, I can
take these one hundred and forty-five men and pick out four men who will
honestly and truthfully testify that they saw anything, and I say that
with no reflection on their honesty either, because the power of
suggestion is enormous. It is not surprising that four people have come
here to say they saw Tracy. It is not surprising that three out of the
four should have been proven, conclusively, convincingly and absolutely,
not to know what they were talking about.
[Illustration: FELIX BARAN
Dark lines on body caused by internal hemorrhage; Portland doctor said
life might have been saved by operation.]
"The court has told you that in this case it is not a question of who
shot first, not a question of which side shot first, it is a question of
who was the aggressor, who made the first aggressive movement, who did
the first hostile thing. The man who did a thing to excite fear was the
aggressor, and that man was McRae when he pulled his gun. McRae clearly
did that before there was any shooting.
"In determining who the aggressor was, you are entitled--not only
entitled but must take into account the past behavior of all parties.
And what does that show you? Was it the I. W. W.'s who had never offered
violence, who had never done an act of violence, who had decried and
deplored violence, as members of their audiences told you, and advised
caution against it? Or was it McRae and his deputies?
"It is only formally correct to refer to these as deputies. They had
commissions, but in nothing else in the world did they bear the remotest
resemblance to officers of the law, not in their conduct, not in their
training, not in their purposes, not in anything. They were the
hirelings of either the mill owners of Everett or the Commercial Club.
Did you ever in your life before hear of officials taking their
instructions from representatives of an industrial movement? Did you
ever before hear of deputy sheriffs being instructed in the propaganda
of the open shop, being instructed in the methods employed at Minot
unlawfully to prevent street speaking? That is where the first mistake
in this case was made. First in the selection of that kind of men;
second in the deliberate attempts which were made to color their
actions, to pervert them, to make them the tools of the employers.
"That is the reason Henig and Carr were beaten, that is the reason
Feinberg and Roberts were beaten, that is the reason men and women were
knocked down in the crowds, that is the reason that this boy, Schwartz,
was taken out by McRae and chased zigzag down the road in mortal terror
of being run down by the sheriff's automobile, that is the reason
'Sergeant' Keenan was hit over the head with a gun, that is the reason
James Rowan was taken out and beaten black and blue. How do you suppose
Rowan got those marks on his back? Did he put them there for fun, or
were they put there by somebody else's rotten, dirty brutality? If you
didn't know a thing about him except what you know about Beverly and
these other incidents, and it was deep darkness where this happened, I
venture you would all say off-hand, 'It must have happened at Everett,
anyway. There is no place else that I know of where they do such
things.'
"Black says the "Wanderer" has been greatly misrepresented to you, that
the things we claim happened did not happen there at all. Well, there is
a lot of evidence that they did happen. There are a lot of people who
could have denied it. There are a whole crew of deputies who could have
come up here and denied it. Why didn't they? Because they were ashamed
of it and they knew they could not stand the grilling that was awaiting
them in the court room. It is true, certainly! And I say here that
nothing but providential intervention prevented McRae on that day from
being a cold-blooded murderer! That is the manner of man you are
considering. You are considering whether he was the aggressor, he or the
people he shot at.
"Counsel says that Louis Skaroff lied. Now I am very frank to confess
that when we produced that story on the witness stand I feared you would
not believe it, not because I doubted the truthfulness of his statement
but because the story itself is so brutal and inhuman that I questioned
whether there could be found anywhere in the county twelve persons who
would think such things could possibly happen just thirty miles away.
But when one of their own witnesses went on the stand here, in rebuttal,
and told you that Louis Skaroff came out of that room with his arms
above his head, crying, with the blood running from his finger tips, I
knew that you knew that Louis Skaroff had told the truth.
"The state has been very reluctant in this case to admit that there were
rifles on the dock, because if the deputies went there with rifles there
was a reason for it. You could not find a rifle on that dock until we
proved--what? That rifle shells were around the dock in great numbers;
we proved it by innocent, clean little boys who picked up the shells;
until we proved by witnesses that the rifles were there and were being
shot; until we proved by a rifle bullet with human blood and a man's
hair on it that the use made of the rifles was a deadly one.
"Who was the aggressor? Even now the State doesn't like to admit,
because the State knows it is fatal to their case to admit, and
notwithstanding hopeless to deny, that there were helpless men in the
water being shot at. They do not like to admit that a man was so
impressed with the inhumanity of the thing that he ran from the depot to
the boat house hoping to effect a rescue of the men and was stopped by
the armed deputies. The State does not like to admit the evidence of
their own deputy witness, Groger,--whose actions I want the counsel for
the state to explain and justify if he can--who repeatedly fired at a
man who was trying to untie the boat so the unarmed men could escape.
"Counsel said that if there was any intention to start trouble men would
not have lined up as they were on the dock in an exposed position. And I
ask you, if there was not an intention to start trouble why were they
kept in the warehouse until the boat had almost tied up? If that was not
an ambuscade, what on earth was it? If they did not intend to start
trouble why was it McRae waited until the line was out and made fast.
Why was it, then, he did not say to the captain, 'Take your boat out?'
He said he was afraid they would go somewhere else. Well, when he told
those boys they could not land he expected them to go away. Or did he
expect them to go away? Which was it?
"The manner in which McRae handled this thing indicates nothing so much
as that he intended to get them there and administer to them another of
the things that he calls a lesson, another of the things that other
people call infamous, damnable brutality.
"Counsel says there have been mistakes made. He doesn't want to
apologize for them, but clearly he doesn't want to be held responsible
for them. There were mistakes made. Beverly was one! The "Wanderer" was
one! From the beginning to the end of all their operations in Everett
everything has been a mistake--a mistake because the ordinary processes
of law and the rights of other people were ignored. There was no
ordinance prohibiting speaking. The boys were yielding implicit, careful
obedience to such law as there was. McRae unblushingly tells you that
the reason he made arrests was because there were labor troubles in
Everett and the shingle mill owners didn't want things embarrassed by
the truth, by the disclosures contained in this little report of the
Industrial Relations Commission.
"They were not afraid of the I. W. W.'s going up there to incite
violence, to advise disorder, to invoke a reign of terror. Reigns of
terror are the employers' specialty! They were afraid of cold fact.
Never a man went up there to speak on the street and used that little
Industrial Relations report but was thrown in jail for it--Thompson,
Rowan, Feinberg, Roberts, all.
"It's nice to enjoy the powers, the position and authority of a dictator
who can repeal, amend and modify, ignore, disregard laws when it suits
his fancy, but it's kind of tough on other people. That's what McRae
did!
"On the 5th of March, nearly nine weeks ago, His Honor called this case
from his bench 'State versus Thomas H. Tracy,' and my friend Mr. Cooley
rose from his chair and said 'Your Honor, the State is ready.' I say to
you, Mr. Cooley, you slandered the fair name of your state! What has the
State of Washington to do with this thing? The name of the State of
Washington in such a case as this should stand for law and order and
decency. The State is supposed to protect the innocent against abuse and
injustice and you who are now running this case do not now maintain
these things, or if you do, you protect them only when convenience
requires it.
"It is not the State of Washington versus Thomas H. Tracy at all, and if
the decent people of Everett who know the facts could decide what course
this action should take it would never be here. Even the title of the
case is a mistake. It is the case of the Commercial Club of Everett, the
mill owners of Everett, against Labor. This is an attempt, just as all
the actions for months have been an attempt, to keep Labor out of its
rights in Everett. The same people who took possession of the machinery
of law in Everett, who took possession of the sheriff and furnished him
with guns and clubs and murderous things like that and instructed him
how to act, the same people who employed detectives to set fires in
order that they might manufacture evidence and public sentiment against
these boys, those same people are today prosecuting this case.
"I don't know where Governor Clough was on November 5th. I suspect he
was not anywhere where there was any danger, but I know the smoke had
not left the decks of the Verona before he was hot-footing it to the
telegraph office,--Governor Clough, not the prosecuting attorney, not
the sheriff, nobody but Clough and Joe Irving, the man who was so drunk
that he beat up Schofield,--to send a telegram to Judge Burke of the
Chamber of Commerce of Seattle, to the Mayor of this City and to the
Chief of Police of this City to arrest the whole bunch of them.
"Then right away they got their other emissaries at work, Reese and
Smith, down here with two fingers out of the door of a darkened cell,
deciding for the State of Washington who should be prosecuted in this
case, and H. D. Cooley, who surely then was not a prosecuting attorney,
giving them legal counsel and directing their energy, taking out the
men, preparing statements, and getting ready for the work he was going
to do in this case, because his employers wanted it.
"There is a conspiracy in this case, a conspiracy supported by evidence,
a conspiracy of men in the Commercial Club to take over the machinery of
government, and by it club these fellows out of their rights, club them
out of Everett, club them out of all contact with the workers in order
that they might not bring to them the gospel of their organization.
"But I say to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that this struggle,
the struggle of Capital against Labor, the struggle of the Commercial
Club against the I. W. W., which is just one phase of the bigger one,
this struggle is going on in spite of Cooley, this struggle is going on
in spite of McLaren, this struggle is going on in spite of Arthur L.
Veitch of the Merchants' and Manufacturers' Association, this struggle
is going on in spite of McRae, this struggle is going on in spite of the
Commercial Club, because it is founded on a principle so big, so
wholesome, and so decent, so righteous, that it must live. And it will
go on until in this country we have industrially that which we have
struggled so long and hard for and finally won politically; until we
have democracy.
"There is nothing in revolution, gentlemen, that is wrong. We came to
the condition in which we now find ourselves by revolution; first the
grand American revolution and then the revolution against chattel
slavery. It was nothing more nor less than revolution, because slavery
was then entrenched under the highest law of the land, the decision of
the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. We took it out of the courts
and slavery was wiped out. Slavery again will be wiped out!
"The thing about this case which makes it of most serious importance,
the thing about this case which makes it of public interest, the thing
about this case which has so enlisted the sympathy of every one
connected with it, which makes us feel the importance of a just verdict,
is that it is not merely the liberty of a man that is at stake, but in a
larger measure than you know there is at stake in your verdict in this
case the rights of the working people, their right to organize, their
right to protect themselves, their right to receive and enjoy the fruits
of their labor.
"There is involved the question of whether or not the working people
shall receive justice or forever must be victimized by organized
capitalists. There is involved the question of whether or not such
things as have gone on in Everett for the last six months may continue
forever with the endorsement of the jury or whether the working people
on the other hand may go and discuss their wrongs and grievances and
strive for their rights.
"As I have confidence in the righteousness of this cause and the
integrity of this purpose, so I have confidence that your verdict will
be not guilty."
Attorney Fred Moore closed the case for the defense with one of the
greatest speeches ever delivered in a court room, a speech that seered
its way to the minds and hearts of the jurors. Far more than a defense
of Thomas H. Tracy it was an explanation of the industrial problems
underlying society, the class warfare rooted in industry and manifesting
itself on November 5th. It was a sustained and definite statement of the
aims and objects of the I. W. W. and Moore showed, not only a great
knowledge of the problems of the working class, but a wonderful command
of satire and irony. Following is an abridgement of Moore's speech to
the jury:
"May it please the court, and ladies and gentlemen of the jury; For a
period of something like five hundred years the Anglo-Saxon has seen fit
to place the final adjustment of the question of justice in the hands of
twelve men. In the evolution of the law, that number has been increased
until now in this state we have fourteen. Likewise, in the evolution of
the law and in the face of the vast amount of public protest, and in the
face of the most reluctant world, we have enlarged the term jurors to
include women jurors. This is the first time that I personally have ever
tried a lawsuit in which ladies sat in the jury.
[Illustration: HUGO GERLOT]
"The state has told you why this case is one of grave responsibility for
them. Allow me to tell you why this is one of grave responsibility for
you. One hundred and ninety-six witnesses have appeared for the
defendant in this case. Yesterday, counsel brought home the fact that
many of these witnesses were not residents of this community, were
without homes, without any permanent places of abode. All true. The
responsibility that you have in this case is commensurate with the fact
that the case reveals to you, as it were, a cross-section of our lives.
You who are property-qualified have a responsibility to pass upon the
liberties and the lives of a body of men who are propertyless. If there
is any change in men's thoughts and views as they acquire a home, as
they settle down, as they marry, as they bring into the world children,
then I ask you in all fairness to attempt to put yourselves in the
places of this defendant and of this defendant's witnesses who have
taken the stand, and to realize that your responsibility here is
commensurate with the fact that the testimony reveals, as it were, a
most deplorable condition of modern life. In other words, your
responsibility here is that of measuring out absolute and complete
justice between warring elements in our modern life, not for one moment
allowing your judgment to be swerved by the fact that one class of
witnesses here are witnesses of social position, are witnesses of
property qualifications, are witnesses with homes, while, on the other
hand, the witnesses called by the defense were witnesses from the four
parts of the earth, witnesses whose only claim to your consideration is
that they have built the railroads, that they have laid the ties, that
they have dug the tunnels, that they have harvested the crops, that they
have worked from one end of the country to the other, in season and out,
floating from job to job.
"In most jurisdictions, the defendant has the opportunity of either a
grand jury investigation or of a preliminary; in other words, he is in
some degree advised of what evidence he is going to be called upon to
meet. In this case, we came in here on the 5th day of March with no
information whatsoever relative to the State's case other than that
given us from the four corners of the instrument on file here, known as
the information, together with the fact that on that information there
were the names of some three hundred or more witnesses. That was all we
had. We were further handicapped in view of the fact that we did not
have behind us all the resources of the State of Washington and the
county of Snohomish, neither did we have behind us all of the resources
of various business interests, neither did we have behind us all the
resources of allied business on this west coast, as represented by Mr.
Veitch."
Mr. Veitch: To which I take an exception, if the court please.
The Court: Exception allowed.
Mr. Veitch: On a matter of personal privilege, I have a right to
characterize that statement as a deliberate misstatement of the fact.
Mr. Moore: Mr. Veitch has not seen fit to explain why he was here.
Mr. Veitch: I am employed by friends of Mr. Jefferson Beard. If that is
not enough--
Mr. Moore: That is outside of the record.
The Court: Both of you are outside of the record. Proceed Mr. Moore.
"Suffice it to say that we are here as the frank and honest
representatives of the defendant and of the defendant's organization. We
do not have behind us the power of the State, or the power of any
interest other than the defendant himself and of his organization.
"Mr. Black complained that the State had been hampered in this cause. Is
it fair to say that the state has been hampered when on the fatal
November the 5th. Judge Bell and Mr. Cooley were both on the dock? Judge
Bell would have us believe that he was unarmed, and so far as we know
Mr. Cooley was unarmed. Then why were they on the dock? Judge Bell was
there as the representative, as he himself has testified, of a number of
lumber mills, and Mr. Cooley was there likewise; both citizen deputies;
both there; both unarmed if their testimony is to be believed. Again Mr.
Cooley was, in the matter of a few hours, down here at the Seattle jail.
Certainly he was not there to represent the defendant Tracy. Who was he
there to represent? He was either there in a private capacity,
representing private clients, or he was there in a public capacity
representing a public client, namely, Snohomish County. Wherein do you
find the evidence of the State being hampered, sir? From the beginning
to the end the State has moved majestically, exercising all the power
that it had. Mr. Black has had able assistance in this cause, the able
assistance of Mr. Cooley, the able assistance of Mr. Veitch, the able
assistance of the man behind Mr. Cooley and Mr. Veitch, Mr. McLaren.
Yet, all the resources of the State have failed to produce one scintilla
of evidence against the defendant Tracy here so far as tending to
indicate that he did counsel, aid, incite, abet, or encourage anyone to
fire any shot, except the testimony of George Reese produced at the
eleventh hour on rebuttal. I intend to treat of our friend Mr. Reese
later.
"It is significant that out of all that mass of testimony that has been
introduced in this case up to this time not one single bit of testimony
has been introduced or any argument had upon that testimony dealing with
the object and principles and purpose of the Industrial Workers of the
World. Mr. Black did not refer to it. Mr. Cooley has the final say. I
anticipate his argument for the State. They have that old reliance, that
old faith, if you will, in the trial of a case of this character, namely
conspiracy; hallowed by age.
"Way back in the sixteenth century the tub women on the banks of the
river Thames were indicted for conspiracy in attempting to raise wages.
The chandlers in London were likewise later indicted. The stonebreakers
in New York, the carpenters in Boston. From time immemorial the charge
of conspiracy has been leveled against the ranks of labor. Indeed, it
was only in the reign of Queen Victoria that labor unions became other
than simple conspiracies. Up to that time labor unions were within a
classification themselves of criminal conspiracy.
"Knowing that under the charge contained in the information we might be
called upon to meet evidence of conspiracy, we then commenced a careful
survey of all the facts in connection with the Everett tragedy. And
what did we find? We found not a hint of conspiracy!
[Illustration: Dead body of Abraham Rabinowitz.]
"James Rowan had come into Everett without knowledge at the time that
there was any trouble there. He had not been advised that there was any
possibility of trouble. From all the prior history of Everett he had no
reason to anticipate trouble. Thompson had spoken there and many others
had spoken there. Rowan was charged with a violation of the peddling
ordinance. He had been given an arbitrary floater out of town and had
exercised his right to come back, was seized again and taken to the city
jail; the sheriff goes there and arbitrarily demands Rowan from the
Chief of Police. These things happened prior to any acts that by any
remote possibility could be charged to us. There was no literature in
the town at that time other than the Industrial Relations report. What
at that time did we have to conspire about? We had no object.
"And as with Rowan so it was with Thompson, Remick and others. If there
was a conspiracy to violate a city ordinance why did not the city
officials make arrests and charge the men with such violations? The
record is silent. Why wait until Tom Tracy is on trial for murder, and
then at the eleventh hour spring this delightfully specious argument?
"I can almost hear ringing in my ears the impassioned plea of Mr. Cooley
in closing this case. He is going to read this, 'The question of 'right'
and 'wrong' does not concern us.' He is going to say that is the I. W.
W. philosophy. My God, did it ever concern the sheriff of Snohomish
County? Does it seem very much to concern others who are attempting this
prosecution?
"We were told in connection with the argument of counsel that Hickey was
not on trial. They might have said that sheriff McRae was not on trial;
they might have said that Bill Pabst was not on trial; they might have
said that Joe Irving was not on trial; they might have said that the
Commercial Club was not on trial; they might have said that all the men
that have been guilty of all the brutality in that County during the
months of August, September and October were not on trial. We know it!
Why are they not on trail?
"Deprivation of due process of law and confiscation of property! And yet
Mr. Cooley is going to urge that the I. W. W. does not believe in
government; he is going to urge that the I. W. W. does not respect the
law. That kind of law never gets the respect of anyone. I hang my head
in shame before such a history of usurpation and seizure of public
authority as has been shown in this case.
"Are you going to give the stamp of your approval to this sort of thing?
When you bring in a verdict in this case for the State you give your
approval to Donald McRae. I beg of you to not put the seal of your
approval upon lawlessness, official lawlessness, the kind of lawlessness
that is worse, tenfold worse, than any private lawlessness.
"You are asked to stamp with your endorsement, to give your approval, to
a man; a public official, the chief executive officer of a municipality,
Mayor Merrill, who admits on the witness stand that he allowed a little
group of members of the Commercial Club to take the power of the police
department out of his office and turn it over to the sheriff of the
county.
"Had the State put on Governor Clough and others on their side of the
case we might have wrung from their reluctant lips the evidence of what
occurred at the meeting on August 30th at the Commercial Club. But the
State was careful not to put him on. Indeed, the most significant and
outstanding thing in all this case is not who they put on, but who they
did not put on. Neil Jamison did not testify in this case for the State;
Governor Clough did not testify in this case for the State; Joe Irving
did not testify in this case; Colonel Hartley did not testify in this
case; Captain Ramwell did not testify. Why didn't Kelly, Chief of
Police, take the stand? You might go down the line and you will find
that the assets of all the witnesses for the State combined would total
but a few thousand dollars, while you could take the remaining witnesses
for the State who did not testify and you could build up an enormous
fortune, running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. We didn't
call them because we cannot cross-examine our own witnesses.
"Is the administration of the law to be made a farce? Shall the State be
allowed to blow hot and cold; one minute hot on the enforcement of the
law, the next minute cold when the shoe pinches, and then hot again when
they can use the law for the advancement of the interests of their
prosecution? They say McRae and Hickey are not on trial; there is no
promise that they shall ever be on trial!
"Let me say to you that no one violates the law, I care not who it is,
just for the fun of violating the law. Jails are not pleasant places to
abide in. People who violate the law and go to jail do so either because
they are deliberately criminal or because they want to focus attention
on some public issue. However, Mr. Black is too kind and considerate
when he gives all this credit to the I. W. W.
"The facts are, if you go back into the history of the Revolutionary
Days, that our forefathers urged and banded together and combined and
federated, and if you will, conspired to violate the Stamp Act of the
British Government, and were willing to go to jail if necessary. They
went even further! They threw the British tea into Boston Harbor.
Violation of the law? Yes, if you want to call it such, but the
indignant protest of a people as against the enforcement of an unjust
law.
"I might urge upon you that the State at that time wanted to absolutely
suppress any speech whatsoever, because they had constituted the chief
of police, the sheriff, the arresting officer, as the executive, the
legislative and the judicial department of our government. The sheriff
executed the law in person, the sheriff declared the question of guilt
himself, the sheriff ordered deportations, and the sheriff took physical
charge of the deportations. Isn't it impossible to avoid a fight when
someone usurps unlawfully and illegally the legislative and judicial
functions of government? Isn't it time to fight? If it isn't then we
may as well cease any attempt to administrate the law!
"In the phraseology of these boys 'Fight' means a moral adherence to
principle, a firm determination to face the authorities in the
administration of the law, and if necessary to be arrested. But the
State would have you put into it now a more sinister meaning, entirely
new and foreign to its former use.
"The State brought in the death of Sullivan of Spokane in their opening
and abandoned it in their close. One of the exploded hopes of the State!
They counted on North Yakima and Wenatchee to show violence and arson,
and they failed most miserably. They have failed in their identification
of the defendant. Now, their forlorn and bankrupt plea here is the
charge of conspiracy.
"The court has told you that this is a murder case. Why then has the
State cumbered the record with the I. W. W. preamble and constitution?
Why with two pamphlets on sabotage? Why with an I. W. W. song book and
such matters? Why?
"Because out of some of the phraseology here, phraseology far removed
from you and me, they may build up a condition of prejudice which may
result in your returning a conviction on a smaller degree of evidence
than you would otherwise require. Mr. Cooley is going to stand here and
read little, short, listed extracts from the context of the whole. The
pamphlets he has introduced on the question of patriotism and the worker
is the foundation from which Mr. Cooley will appeal to your prejudices
and passions.
"We are not afraid of the evidence. We are afraid of this deep-grained
interest that goes down into men's conscience and that reached back a
thousand years.
"Remember that behind this case are many women and children whose cause
these boys represent; whose cause these boys are attempting to fight
for. They fight because they must! They fight because to do anything
else is suicide. You could not have stopped the American Revolution with
all the powers of the British government. Since this jury was empaneled
you have had the collapse of one of the greatest powers of modern times.
I refer to Russia. It has passed from an absolute monarchy to a stage of
a republic.
"The trial of this cause is the presentation of a great social issue,
the greatest issue of modern times, namely, what are we going to do
today with the migratory and occasional workers? These migratories, they
are the boys who have told their story on the stand.
"If there is one principle that is ground into Anglo-Saxon thought it is
that of liberty of the press and freedom of speech. Those two things
stand as the bulwark of our liberty. They are the things for which the
Anglo-Saxon has fought from time immemorial. Away back in the eighteenth
century Charles Erskine, a member of the British bar, defended Thomas
Paine for having written the 'Rights of Man'. Case after case was fought
out during that period when English thought was budding into fruition;
when English thought was being tremendously influenced by the French
Revolution and when those thoughts were bearing fruit in England. Time
and time again the British crown attempted to throttle freedom of speech
and liberty of the press. Time and time again Charles Erskine's voice
was raised in the House of Lords in protest. Time and time again the
British courts and finally the British jurors, gave voice to the
doctrine that freedom of speech and liberty of the press may not be
invaded except insofar as that subject, that document, is accompanied
with acts; that you may not convict men for what they think; you may
convict men only for what they do. Freedom of discussion thru the press
and thru the public forum are the mainstay and the backbone of social
development and social evolution. Only in that way, thru freedom of
thought and freedom of discussion, may you fan the wheat from the chaff.
"Why, if this I. W. W. literature is all the State claims it is, why
doesn't the State act in the way the law says they should act, prefer
charges, arrest someone, bring the literature before a duly qualified
body, a court with jurisdiction, and try the matter out? The State has
not done that; the State will not do that; and we are in the position of
a man fighting in the dark, without knowledge of what character of
argument the State proposes to make.
"I do know that the name of Joe Hill is going to be paraded in front of
this jury. The I. W. W. song book dedicated to Joe Hill, with the
inscription 'Murdered by the authorities of the State of Utah, November
19th, 1915.' I cannot go into the conditions that surround that tragedy,
but I can call your attention to one or two things that bear upon the
question of the type of the man. Before he died, written in his cell on
the eve of the execution, was Joe Hill's last will:
My will is easy to decide,
For there is nothing to divide.
My kin don't need to fuss and moan--
Moss does not cling to a rolling stone.
My body? Ah, if I could choose,
I would to ashes it reduce,
And let the merry breezes blow
My dust to where some flowers grow.
Perhaps some fading flower then
Would come to life and bloom again.
This is my last and final will.
Good luck to all of you, JOE HILL.
"This is the type of man you are asked, because he was honored, because
some odd hundred thousand workers who suffer and who wander and who live
in the jungles of labor as he did, and because he wrote songs that they
understood, songs that because their songs, to judge as the author of
the songs and bring in a verdict against Tom Tracy. Mr. Cooley will
parade the songs one by one. Remember that behind any words he voices,
any thought he expresses, behind it all was a human soul, a human soul
passed, a human soul that lived as you and I, a human soul that had
rights that had been trampled upon, and who attempted to voice those
things.
"With all the oratory he can display Mr. Cooley will read the song,
'Christians at War.' A song that Mr. Thompson designated as a satire.
You recollect that when the European war broke out both parties in that
conflict called to their aid and said they were acting under divine
guidance; that the Kaiser was fighting under the name of God, and that
the British and French governments were allied with the Almighty. It is
not for me to attempt a settlement of that dispute. History will say
that of all the tragedies of the Twentieth Century, the most tragic
thing of our modern life is that we of different nationalities, but
bound together by all other ties, should be engaged in a death grapple.
But that is not the issue here. But I cannot at this time anticipate
wherein and how this literature presented by the State helps you to
decide the question of who was the aggressor on November 5th.
"Who was the aggressor on July 31st when James Rowan was arrested and
brought into the city court? McRae comes in and tells him to get out of
town. An intervening series of events and Levi Remick is run out of
town. Who was the aggressor? Sheriff McRae! On August 22nd Rowan and
Remick were both in the union hall. McRae comes in and orders them out
of town. Who was the aggressor? That night Thompson and others came up
to Everett--who was the aggressor then? Next morning, with Kelly
treating them half way white, along comes McRae and takes away one of
the boy's money. Who was the aggressor? We come now to the deputies
meeting at the Commercial Club on August 30th. Who was the aggressor?
Had any of their members been beaten up? Had anything happened to their
members whatsoever? Not at all! Yet murderous blackjacks were put into
the hands of the membership of the club. Was James Rowan the aggressor
when he was railroaded out of town and beaten? Who was the aggressor at
the time of the 'Wanderer' outrage? Old Capt. Mitten, old John Berg,
Edith Frenette? Who was the aggressor with Henig? With Feinberg? With
Roberts? You have the testimony of Cannow, you have the testimony of
Schofield, you have testimony showing the instructions given to the
deputies. No one denies it. Here is a series of acts leading up to
October 30th, in which on each and every occasion McRae and his
deputies, either regular or citizen deputies, were the aggressors. I
said, who were the aggressors? Is there any question in your mind who
was the aggressor up to Beverly Park? Any question in God's world who
had done the dirty work up to that time? The State would have you
believe that the I. W. W., with its membership coming from the four
corners of the country, changed complexion practically over night,
changed their whole ideas and their methods. I do not believe it and you
do not believe it.
[Illustration: Part of 78 prisoners of County Everett Wn. Released
May 8, 1917.]
"The excuse the State gives for the actions of the deputies is that in
the case of large numbers they could not give due process of law.
Gentlemen, I refuse to believe that the Government is bankrupt in its
capacity to protect itself thru legal and lawful measures of law
enforcement. I have yet to sit in a court room and hear a plea on social
and governmental bankruptcy such as is the plea of counsel for the
State.
"The machinery of the government was there but it was not the kind of
machinery that McRae wanted to use. It was not the kind Clough wanted to
use. It was not the kind of machinery the executive committee, whoever
they were, sitting behind the closed doors of the Commercial Club,
wanted to use.
"And these members and leaders of the Commercial Club passed resolutions
stigmatizing their own citizens, member of their own community, property
owners in their own town, as well as the I. W. W., when they declared
for an open shop. How do they stigmatize them? 'Professional agitators!'
Yes. Lloyd Garrison was a professional agitator. Wendell Phillips was a
professional agitator. The men who fought the battle that lay the ground
work that made Abraham Lincoln possible, the men who are at work to
better American politics, those men have all been professional
agitators.
"Now on the boat they were ninety-nine percent I. W. W.'s, just a few
passengers had bought their passage before. On the dock they were all
citizen deputies, persons interested therein, and persons satisfactory
to the men who had been stationed there to see that nobody but the right
ones got on the dock. That means that as far as the first shot was
concerned the two classes of witnesses are in some degree interested
parties. The State put on a total of twenty-two witnesses, one of them
not a deputy, all of whom testified that the shot came, or they thought
it came from the dock, and of that number thirty-seven were I. W. W.'s,
and twenty-four were not members at all but were Everett people from all
walks of life.
"Now counsel is going to discount the value of the testimony of these
citizens. Well, Mr. Cooley, we used the only kind of witnesses that you,
in all of your care exercised in advance on November 5th, left for us.
In the exercise of the highest degree of judicial advance knowledge they
saw to it that nobody got any closer to the end of the dock than the
landing. We could not help that. You barred us from the dock; you barred
us from access to the facts. We did all we could to get the facts, and
if we couldn't get any closer it was not our fault. And the man who
barred us from access to the facts is the man who is least qualified to
come into court now and urge that our witnesses are disqualified in the
face of the evidence that they disqualified them. But those witnesses
could testify, and they did testify, to the very definite and specific
facts--the first tipping of the boat, the rushing of the men, the volley
firing, all of those matters.
"At the eleventh hour there came into this case a man by the name of
Reese, a member, if you will, of the I. W. W. Back in the Chicago
stockyards they have a large pen where they keep the cattle which are to
be driven to slaughter. In that place they have had for years a steer
that has performed the function of going into the big pen where all the
cattle are, and, after mingling with them, then walking out thru a gate.
He is trained to do it, he is skilled at it, this steer--and after
walking around with the poor peaceful cattle that don't know they are
about to be killed, this steer then goes up an incline, the gate is
opened and the other cattle follow, and when he gets to the top of the
incline there is a door and he turns to the right thru this door to
safety and his followers turn to the left to death. That's George Reese!
Proud of him? George Reese, the man who reported day by day with his
confederates! To whom? During one period to the Pinkerton agency in
regard to the longshoremen's union; during another period on behalf of
the Pinkerton Agency to the Commercial Club in Everett. George Reese! A
man who doesn't even come under the approximately dignified title of a
detective; a man whom Ahern, of his own agency says, 'Well, he wasn't a
detective, we used him as an informer.' Informer! A human being that has
lost its human color.
"In connection with the testimony of Reese let me call your attention to
the Industrial Relations Commission Report, a report that our friends of
the Commercial Club had read and knew all about:
"'Spies in the Union: If the secret agents of employers, working as
members of labor unions, do not always instigate acts of violence, they
frequently encourage them. If they did not they would not be performing
the duties for which they are paid. If they find that labor unions never
discuss acts of violence they have nothing to report to those employing
them. If they do not report matters which the detective agencies
employing them can use to frighten the corporation to cause their
employment, they cannot continue long as spies. Either they must make
reports that are false, in which case discovery would be inevitable, or
they must create a basis on which to make a truthful report. The union
spy is not in business to protect the community. He has little respect
for the law, civil or moral. Men of character do not engage in such
work, and it follows that the men who do are, as a rule, devoid of
principle and ready to go to almost any extreme to please those who
employ them.'
"That is the descriptive adjective, definition and analysis of the
character of union informants made by the National Industrial
Commission, appointed by President Wilson, and composed of nine men, all
men of national standing, three representatives of labor, three
representatives of capital and three representatives of the general
public. That is their definition, description and classification of that
character of testimony.
"Mr. Vanderveer closed yesterday by saying that this struggle, whatever
your verdict is, will win. If yours is a verdict of 'not guilty,' Tom
Tracy must take up again the job of finding a job, the endless tragedy
of marching from job to job, without home, wife or kindred. His offense
consists of being a migratory worker. I beg of you to render a verdict
that has due regard and consideration for the tragedy of our twentieth
century civilization that does not as yet measure out economic justice.
"Your verdict means much. The wires tonight will carry the word all over
this land, into Australia, New Zealand and thruout the world. Your
verdict means much to the workers, their mothers, their children, who
are interested in this great struggle. We are not in this courtroom as
the representatives of one person, two persons or three persons; our
clients run into five or six hundred thousand. We are here as the
mouthpiece of the workers of America, organized and unorganized, and
they are all behind our voices.
"Tom Tracy stands here in your control. You are the ones to determine
whether or not he shall walk out free, whether or not he shall be
branded for all times with the most serious felony known to the law,
namely, that of a murderer. Can you find it in the evidence to bring in
a verdict of guilty in this case?
[Illustration: Singing to the Prisoners.]
"In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, we want no compromise here. When
you retire to your jury room I beg of you not to compromise with any
verdict other than not guilty. We don't want manslaughter in this case,
we don't want second degree murder in this case; it is either first
degree murder or an acquittal, one or the other. Allow none of those
arguments that we, as lawyers, know are made in the juryroom to
influence your honest verdict in this case. We ask at your hands, and we
believe with all the sincerity of our souls, that the evidence warrants
it, we ask a verdict of not guilty for the defendant, Thomas H. Tracy!"
If the speech of prosecutor Black was a whine, that of prosecutor Cooley
was a yelp and a snarl. Apologies, stale jokes, and sneers at the
propertyless workers followed one another in close succession. The gist
of his harangue was as follows:
"In this case I am going to try simply in the closing argument to select
a few of the monuments that it seems to me stand out in this case and
that point a way to a proper verdict.
"Now, in the first place, a whole lot has been said here as to the
nature of the controversy that existed for a number of months before
November the 5th, 1916, between two classes of individuals there at
Everett. Upon the one side were the people who were living in the city
of Everett, who had made their homes there, who had come there for the
purpose of carrying out their future destiny in that city. It was their
home. Their interests were there. Their families were there. And upon
the other side were a class of people who did not claim Everett as their
home, who did not come there for the purpose of amalgamating with the
citizenship of the city of Everett. They were not coming there because
they had work there, nor because they were seeking work there; they were
not citizens of Everett, nor were they seeking to become citizens of
Everett, and there arose a controversy between the citizens of Everett
on the one hand and these people from the four corners of the earth upon
the other. The first thing we want to inquire into to find out if we can
from the testimony in this case exactly what was the nature of that
trouble that existed between them. Why was it that upon the one hand
there was a band of people congregated down here in the city of Seattle
from all over the land and making one excursion after another,
attempting to break into the city of Everett? Why was it that there were
citizens of Everett up there seeking to do only one thing, asking only
one thing, that these people keep away from Everett?
"Was it a fight to win the right of free speech on the one hand? Was it
a fight on the other hand of a group of individuals who were simply
seeking to force the open shop? Or was it a fight of a more serious
nature on either hand?
"I grant you that the origin of the trouble arose because a man was
seeking to speak upon the streets of Everett and he was stopped. But
long before November 5th that original incident was lost sight of and
forgotten. The controversy had grown to a magnitude that overshadowed
the original incident. It was necessary in order that you might
understand the situation with which the people of Everett were
confronted that you should be apprised of the nature of the organization
to which those people belong, that you should be apprised of the nature
of the place in the world that they had attained, and that you should be
apprised of the nature of their propaganda that they were seeking to
inject into the city of Everett and that locality.
"I want to say right here and now that I have the highest regard for
organized labor. Labor has the right to organize. There is not any
question about it; there is not any dispute about it. Labor has
organized and it has made a manful fight, and all down the pages of
history you will find that labor, thru its organization and thru its
lawful methods pursued under its organization, has gradually bettered
its condition.
"It is not a question, and never has been in this case, as to the right
of the labor men to organize; the right of the laboring man to use all
of the lawful methods for the purpose of bettering his condition. The
question in this case is as to whether any organization, whether it be
a labor organization or any other, has the right to use unlawful
methods; whether it has the right, because it may have the power, to use
unlawful methods.
"Now there were coming into the city of Everett people representing this
organization known as the Industrial Workers of the World. What was the
propaganda that they were seeking to introduce there? They put upon the
stand their chief exponent in this part of the country, to tell you what
their purpose was in coming to the city of Everett, and what the
doctrines were that they were teaching to the people that congregated
there in the city of Everett. Mr. Thompson was upon the stand for about
two days, and he delivered to this jury a lecture, which he says was a
resume of three lectures that he gave up there in the city of Everett.
He was asked whether or not he talked on sabotage and he told you what
he had to say about it. He said sabotage was 'a conscious withdrawal of
efficiency, a folding of the arms.' But Thompson says it is never the
destruction of property, and yet the organization that sends him out to
talk on sabotage puts out right along with him the literature that has
been adopted by the I. W. W. as a part of their propaganda, defining
what sabotage really is and it gives the lie to Mr. Thompson. It may
mean working slow; it may mean poor work; it may mean folding of arms;
it may mean conscious withdrawal of efficiency. So far sabotage is legal
and anyone has a right to use it. But it may mean the spoiling of a
finished product, it may mean the destruction of parts of machinery, it
is the destruction of property. 'Sabotage is a direct application of the
idea that property has no rights that its creators are bound to
respect.' It does not say that certain kinds of property has no rights,
but that there is no property that has any rights that are bound to be
respected. But Thompson says that is not sabotage.
"Sabotage is what? Where is that old song book? Let us see whether it
means simply the folding of the arms. (Cooley dived into a mass of
pamphlets, but being unable to locate the song book he came up with
Elizabeth Gurley Flynn's pamphlet on Sabotage, reading from it as
follows:) 'Sabotage itself is not clearly defined. Sabotage is as broad
and changing as industry, as flexible as the imagination and passions of
humanity.' Why, if it consisted simply of a folding of the arms, if it
consisted simply of the withdrawal of efficiency, there would not be
much flexibility to it, would there, and the passions of humanity would
have nothing to do with it? That language means that sabotage means
anything that the imagination can devise and the passions of men adopt,
if they had the power to use it and get away with it. Oh, it is not
wrong! No matter what form it takes it is not wrong, because they say so
in their official publication. 'The tactics used are determined solely
by the power of the organization to make good in their use. The question
of 'right' and 'wrong' does not concern us.' Put the two together.
Legality and illegality, those terms have no meaning to a man of the
Industrial Workers of the World. Why? Because there is no law that they
are bound to respect except the law that is made by them in their own
union hall. It is in the song book, 'Make your laws in the union hall,
the rest can go to hell.' That is the class of people that we had to
deal with, who were coming there to Everett.
"In Spokane there were twelve hundred convictions upon a valid
ordinance, and yet, after they had convicted a hundred of them they
didn't stop coming, and two hundred, and two hundred and fifty, and five
hundred, and they continued coming there until the city jail of the city
of Spokane was filled, until the county jail of Spokane county was
filled, until an old deserted school house was filled, and then until an
army post jail was filled. A species of sabotage! They weren't willing
to accept the verdict of one jury, or ten juries, or of a hundred
juries, that they were violating the law. They had made their laws in
their union halls and they were going to speak at a certain place, upon
a certain street of Spokane; and they were going to compel the citizens
of Spokane to let them speak when they pleased, where they pleased, and
say what they pleased; and they kept it up until after Spokane had the
expense of a thousand trials and had upon its hands a thousand
defendants it began to think it had better yield and let them speak when
they pleased, where they pleased and say what they pleased. And Spokane
was licked!
[Illustration: Charles Ashleigh speaking at the funeral, of Looney,
Baran and Gerlot.]
"Is it any wonder that the citizens of Everett said 'If you have no
regard for law we will meet you on your own ground; we are not going to
be bankrupted; we are not going to be hammered into defeat as they were
in Spokane; we are not going to have you sabotage us in that manner by
your numbers; we are not going to have your people coming from the
Dakotas, from Montana, from Oregon, and from all over the various parts
of the state of Washington, and camping down on us until we surrender to
you. We are going to keep you out of here.' Now, that may not have been
strictly legal, but it was human nature.
"There is not hint anywhere in the argument of either counsel for the
defense in this case as to what was ever done in the city of Everett by
the I. W. W. that would constitute new methods and new tactics. Do you
remember the testimony over a period of time there before Labor Day that
they allowed them to speak without interference and a meeting was held
there and every time they went up with a chip on their shoulder and were
not satisfied when no one interfered with them. When they were there
speaking on the corner of Hewitt and Wetmore somebody was going around
the city of Everett distributing a nasty stinking chemical in the
theater building, into the store buildings, into the business houses,
into the automobiles. And the paper in the next issue gloats over it and
intimates that the reason the officers did not arrest Feinberg was
because they were evidently too busy chasing a cat of malodorous
tendencies. When Thompson was upon the stand and was being questioned
about sabotage and about cats; he could tell you what a cat was, he got
a bit halting in his speech when he was asked what it meant when they
said that the claws of the cat had been sharpened, when he was asked
what a 'sabcat' meant, but when he was asked as to what a cat of
'malodorous tendencies' was he said he didn't know unless it was a
skunk. But by that was meant that the skunk accomplishes sabotage. You
never heard of a skunk that did sabotage by simply a withdrawal of
efficiency, never!
"Now as to incendiary and phosphorous fires. Fire Chief Terrell tells
you that up to the date of September 28th, the date of the first known
phosphorous fire in Everett, that up to that time, in all of his
experience upon the fire force of the city of Everett, it never had come
to his knowledge or observation in any way that a phosphorous fire had
ever occurred in the city. It occurred there, known to be a phosphorous
fire, and within a period of two months at least two other fires
occurred, mysterious, the origin unknown because the fire had progressed
to such an extent that no one could tell how it did start."
Mr. Vanderveer: Didn't your detective go to work September 21st?
Mr. Cooley: Yes sir, he did.
"And they would have you believe that the detective was up there setting
those fires. That, I know, is an insinuation not supported by any
evidence in this case, and the detective wasn't working up there, he was
operating down here in the city of Seattle. He was sending his reports
to Blain before the Wanderer started out, before the men started out on
October 30th, and that goes a good way to explain how it happened how
these people were met on these different excursions and were not
permitted to come within the city of Everett. They were trying to get
into the city of Everett, to use their own judgment, to act on their own
initiative, according to instructions that had gone out. And the
officers stopped the thing before it started.
"What were they coming to Everett for, these forty-one men who were met?
Were they coming to hold a street meeting? Forty-one men, enthused with
the enthusiasm of the belief in their grand and glorious doctrine that
they are teaching, forty-one men starting out as crusaders to carry the
gospel of their organization to the benighted of Everett, forty-one
going up there to be martyrs, to be beaten for the cause, and nothing
else!
"I have told of the tactics and methods advocated, used and encouraged,
by this peculiar, particular organization, so you can judge the
character, purpose and intentions of the individuals that were seeking
from time to time to force themselves into the city of Everett, in order
that you may judge the two hundred and sixty that left on the Verona on
November the 5th.
"But there is another matter you should likewise take into consideration
in determining the character of the individuals of that crowd.
Regardless of all environment, regardless of the effect of all
legislation, regardless of all social conditions, men are born--not all
with the same propensities, not all with the same natural ambitions, not
all with the same qualifications, and out of the entire mass of humanity
there is a certain percentage that were born without any ambition, born
without any incentive; they go thru life without any incentive,
constantly tired. Now I am not here to say that all the I. W. W.'s are
that kind of people. I am not here to say that because a man is a member
of the I. W. W. he is a tramp or a hobo. But there is a class that has
been recognized in this country ever since the country existed, a class
that don't want to work, that would not work if you gave them an
opportunity. These are a percentage, I don't know how large, and I say
that every one of these people are members of the I. W. W. organization
or should be. Why? Well, in the first place, you don't have to show any
qualification for any line of work. You don't have to make proof of
anything whatever to become a member of that organization. And is there
any inducement for a man who has been drifting here and there, walking
the ties, counting the mile posts as he walks from one place to another,
to join that organization? It gives him a pass upon every freight train
that travels the length and breadth of the land. One of the best
inducements in the world.
"There is another class of people in this country that are born with
criminal instincts implanted in their very natures; they are scattered
all over this land and we have them with us and we will always have them
with us. There are men who are driven to crime thru misfortune; there
are men who commit crime under the influence of environment; but there
is a percentage of men who are habitual, natural and instinctive
criminals. Now I don't say that because a man is a member of the I. W.
W. he is necessarily and instinctively a criminal, but I do say that
every habitual, instinctive criminal, who knows that he intends to
violate the law upon every opportunity to satisfy his own criminal
desire, has every inducement to become a member of that organization.
"There are a few uncontested and undisputed facts in connection with the
occurrence at the dock. Jefferson Beard was killed on that dock. No
doubt about that! The defendant was on the boat. No question about that!
There is no question that the conversation between McRae and the people
on the boat occurred substantially in the language that you have heard
repeated here by witnesses for the State and for the defense, all
agreeing that the conversation preceded the shooting. There is no
dispute that McRae turned partially away from the boat and that one of
the first three shots fired hit McRae while he was turning. The burden
of the whole argument of the defense was that when somebody on the boat
saw McRae put his hand on his gun he was justified in shooting. It is
not material whether Tracy shot Jefferson Beard or somebody else. It is
not material whether Tracy fired a gun or not, provided the evidence in
this case satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that Tracy was a party
to the conspiracy to go up to the city of Everett to violate an
ordinance of the city of Everett.
"But have you any doubt that Tracy was seen on the boat? Hogan saw the
window and he saw a man with his face at the window shooting in his
direction. Hogan wasn't thinking of the exact angle at which the boat
was standing to the dock, but he knows he was standing at such an angle
to the boat that he could see a man in a certain place on the boat. And
he testified he did see him.
"It wasn't Thomas Tracy that was looking out of that window, it was
Martin. It wasn't Thomas Tracy dressed for the occasion, it wasn't
Thomas Tracy shaven for a picnic, it wasn't Thomas Tracy wearing a
Sunday countenance, it wasn't Thomas Tracy gazing placidly out of a mild
blue eye! It was Thomas Tracy, alias Martin, with his face drawn down
into a scowl of hatred, with his eyebrows lowering over his eyes, gazing
at John Hogan, not only gazing at him thru a window, but gazing at him
over a gun! And if there is anything that would impress itself into the
memory and recollection of a man it is the remembrance of a face filled
with venomous hatred, the eyes shooting daggers at you while he is
gazing at you over the muzzle of a gun--and you are not going to forget
that!
"Counsel for the defense says this is an important trial, that important
questions are involved, that the verdict in this case will have a great
deal to do with the ultimate future of the working man and organized
labor. I don't think that matters of that kind should enter the minds of
the jurors in arriving at a verdict, but if it does, I want to
supplement what counsel for the defense has said. I want to say that in
my mind a verdict in this case will have much to do with the future
success and the future advancement of honest labor in every line and in
all organizations. It will have much to do with clarifying the situation
insofar as this one organization is concerned. Every organization don't
preach the doctrines that are preached by this organization, and if this
jury by its verdict does not support that kind of method and that kind
of procedure it will aid in purifying an organization that otherwise
might do a world of good, but as it stands today, uttering the
propaganda that it does, pursuing the tactics that it does it, is a
menace not only to society, but is a menace to the welfare of the other
labor organizations that believe in pursuing lawful methods, in a lawful
manner. This is an important case in that regard.
"I believe that it is a fortunate thing that a jury of King County and a
jury from the city of Seattle should have been called to try this case.
The seed was not planted in Snohomish County! The plot was not hatched
in Snohomish County! It was hatched down here in Seattle. The expedition
started out from Seattle, not this one alone but many of them. Seattle
was the base, the enemy's base, and it was from here that they started.
Just down here almost in sight of this court house is the place where we
claim the plot was formed, and it has come back here, and we come into
court and lay it at your feet. They returned here, they have brought the
case here for trial, and we are satisfied. Now we lay it before you and
say,--'As citizens of Seattle do justice to the city of Everett and
Snohomish County.'"
With these words ringing in their ears the twelve jurors retired for
their deliberations, the court having entered an order discharging from
further service the two alternate jurors, Efaw and Williams.
Retiring shortly before noon, the jury consulted for nearly twenty-two
hours, taking ballot after ballot only to find that there were some who
steadfastly refused to agree to any compromise verdict. Then, shortly
after nine o'clock on May 5th, two full calendar months after the start
of the trial and just six months to the day from the time of the tragedy
of the Verona, Foreman James R. Williams announced the result of their
deliberations, and the word sped out to the many hundred thousands who
had spent an anxious and sleepless night;
"We, the jury, find the defendant, Thomas H. Tracy, NOT GUILTY!"